He mentioned that Deuba had made a claim to form the government with the signatures of 149 lawmakers and the president should have appointed him as the prime minister. Shrestha also argued not appointing Deuba as the prime minister even when he had made a claim with the signatures of a majority of lawmakers was unconstitutional.
Shrestha also stated that it was not only about who was appointed the prime minister but also about the constitution. If the provisions of the constitution that was drafted by the Constituent Assembly is not implemented then who will protect the constitution, he argued. He also said that it looked like as though the president feels she has all the authority granted by Article 76.
He further questioned if the president had the right to overlook the authority of the House of Representatives that has been enshrined in the constitution.
During his argument, Shrestha also mentioned that Article 76 (5) of the
Constitution of Nepal was the ultimate recourse that the lawmakers could adopt to save the parliament. It guarantees the freedom of the lawmakers to form a government and save the House, he added.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Harihar Dahal questioned what could be stronger and more valid than the signatures of 149 lawmakers. He said that the House was dissolved immediately at night and the president did not even wait till the next day. Dahal mentioned that the president tried to keep KP Sharma Oli as the prime minister at any cost.
